Saying the limit is artificial is semantic and subjective at best.  The entire set of concensus rules and all of the parameters are "artificial".  There is nothing scientific or founded in economics to call a certain parameter that you don't like "artificial".  You are implying it is a negative thing but not giving any founded reasoning as to why it is so.

You have no basis or metric for determining whether bitcoin is too young to not increase its capacity and it is therefore only your individual subjective opinion and the opinion of other misinformed persons.

The exodus you speak of is FUD and not a falsifiable conjecture and therefore admittedly not rooted in a scientifically based argument.  You speak of an undefined future only, which is your only weapon in the debate.

Many business solutions are being created for bitcoin but bitcoin is not being adopted as a payment method which is not a negative thing like you imply.  Bitcoin as a store of wealth serves a great purpose in this world and businesses and citizens using it to transact are not needed whatsoever for this phenomenon to unfold.

Of course they are.  Because no one wants to spend a money that is increasing in value versus their other options.  And yes bitcoin will lose its option to be scaled in regard to transaction capacity but only because its value rises to the point that meta players are using it for large value settlement/transactions.  This means the network will be worth trillions of usd or more, and yes casual users today will stop using it primarily as a payment system.  

But it will still be p2p because a metaplayer/bank (peer1) will be able to send it to another metaplayer/bank (peer2)